Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Koppi, 798 N.W.2d 358.

246 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Timothy John Huber Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Despite the considerable latitude given to the district court in formulating jury instructions, an instruction, when viewed in its entirety, “must fairly and adequately explain the law of the case.”
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Steven Pettinelli Minn. Ct. App. 2014
“[T]he probable cause standard asks whether the totality of the facts and circumstances known would lead a reasonable officer to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Antoine Rumel Little 851 N.W.2d 878 Minn. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Gregory Brian-Will Thompson Minn. Ct. App. 2014
A. Jury instructions A district court must instruct the jury in a way that “fairly and adequately explain[s] the law of the case” and does not “materially misstate[] the applicable law.”
Daniel Peter Frisch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Daniel Peter Frisch v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State v. Thiel 846 N.W.2d 605 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Probable cause exists when “the totality of the facts and circumstances known would lead a reasonable officer to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Lemert 843 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2014
State v. Lemert 843 N.W.2d 227 Minn. 2014
After all, “[t]he actual, subjective beliefs of the officer are not the focus in evaluating reasonableness.”
Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services 841 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2014
Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services 841 N.W.2d 147 Minn. 2014
(indicating that we do not generally review issues that are not raised in a petition for further review).
State v. Watkins 840 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2013
State v. Watkins 840 N.W.2d 21 Minn. 2013
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Eichers 840 N.W.2d 210 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
The actual, subjective beliefs-of the officer are not the focus in evaluating reasonableness.” (quotation omitted).
State v. Juarez 837 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 2013
State v. Juarez 837 N.W.2d 473 Minn. 2013
In re Minnesota Power for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in Minnesota 838 N.W.2d 747 Minn. 2013
In re Minnesota Power for Authority to Increase Rates for Electric Service in Minnesota 838 N.W.2d 747 Minn. 2013
State v. Kelley 832 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Kelley 832 N.W.2d 447 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(“We review a district court’s decision to give a requested jury instruction for an abuse of discretion.”).
State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
State v. Porte 832 N.W.2d 303 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
*311 A. A district court must instruct the jury in a way that “fairly and adequately explain[s] the law of the case” and does not “materially misstate[ ] the applicable law.”
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 836 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2013
Dickhoff ex rel. Dickhoff v. Green 836 N.W.2d 321 Minn. 2013
(explaining that failure to preserve an issue on appeal results in waiver).
State v. Wilson 830 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2013
State v. Wilson 830 N.W.2d 849 Minn. 2013
Green v. BMW of North America, LLC 826 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 2013
Green v. BMW of North America, LLC 826 N.W.2d 530 Minn. 2013
("Generally, we do not address issues the petitioner fails to raise in a petition for further review.”).
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
Engineering & Construction Innovations, Inc. v. L.H. Bolduc Co. 825 N.W.2d 695 Minn. 2013
See State v. *713 Koppi (stating that we do not ordinarily decide issues not preserved in a petition for review).
League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2012
League of Women Voters Minnesota v. Ritchie 819 N.W.2d 636 Minn. 2012
-67 (Minn.2011) (explaining that matters not raised in a petition for review are generally waived for appellate review, and are, therefore, not considered by our court).
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Ards 816 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
a ehemical-test-refusal case, the Minnesota Supreme Court noted that “because an officer’s training and experience is the lens through which the fact-finder must evaluate the reasonableness of an officer’s determination of probable cause, probable cause incorporates the individual characteristics and
United Prairie Bank-Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC 813 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2012
United Prairie Bank-Mountain Lake v. Haugen Nutrition & Equipment, LLC 813 N.W.2d 49 Minn. 2012
(declining to address an issue that was not raised in the petition for review).
State v. Tanksley 809 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2012
State v. Tanksley 809 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2012
Co., , 584 n. 2 (Minn.2010), or in the petition for review
State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Gunderson 812 N.W.2d 156 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
See State v. Koppi -66 (Minn.2011) (concluding that district court erred in using the CRIMJIG because the instructions deviated substantially from the applicable law).
State v. Nelson 806 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
State v. Nelson 806 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2011
A jury instruction is erroneous if it materially misstates the applicable law.” -62 (Minn.2011) (citations omitted).